That decision, in respect of which the judges had expressed a number of dissenting opinions, had been criticized, in particular because it had not recognized the need for a genuine link between the State exercising protection and the legal person whose interests had been injured, a need that had been previously affirmed in a number of treaties providing for the direct protection of shareholders but which the Court had regarded as lex specialis in the Barcelona Traction case.
Dicho fallo, que contó con numerosas opiniones disidentes entre los magistrados, ha sido objeto de críticas, en especial porque no reconocía la necesidad de que exista un vínculo efectivo entre el Estado que ejerce la protección y la persona jurídica cuyos intereses son lesionados, cosa que se había reconocido ya en ciertos tratados que preveían la protección directa de los accionistas y que la Corte consideró ley especial en ese caso.